it will affect the financial crisis. what is good for each and every one. the financial business has to be there. it has brought the world forward and it has engendered enormous growth. it should actually serve the real economy because without it, without a job -- people will be without a job. you have met a lot. >> coming up in a little more than an hour, a look at the global economic outlook with members of the world bank. right now, live coverage with a discussion with the washington bureau chief of the new york times coming to us live.

♪ >> from the national press club in washington, d.c. >> hello, and welcome to the national press club and another he kalb report. all the news that is fit to print behind "the new york times."

i am thankful every day. one that i get up every morning, to the bureau the a live in a free country, and three the -- two, that i live in a free country, and leave the newspapers are delivered every day. for me, the newspaper is a morning near a cold. -- morning miracle. imagine stories from all over the world, a morning near called essential to the functioning of an open and free society to achieve. a morning miracle essential to the functioning of an open and free society. "the new york times" is one of the best in the world. we are delighted to welcome our guests to the national press cologne. -- national press club.

has been a reporter since 1970. he has been bureau chief for the soviet union and south africa. he won a pulitzer prize for his coverage of the soviet union and has also been a columnist and managing director. gene has been with the paper since 1990, although he did take seven years of to be the manager for the "l.a. times." he, too, has won the pulitzer prize for reagan -- cliff surprise. i have called your newspaper -- he has won the pulitzer prize. i have called your newspaper a

miracle triggered he worked in new york, which is the headquarters of "the new york times." how many people work for "the new york times" hamas awareness actual journalists are a little more than a 1100 -- how many people work for "the new york times"? >> i shall journalists are a little more than 1100. >> of the 1100, how many are actually reporters who cover stories? >> roughly 400. >> on a normal day, when you get in? >> about 8:30. >> what is your first meeting? >> we just change our first meeting for many years. new -- our first meeting. for many years it began at 11:30. we now startek kenneth clark, and we devote our time equally

to -- we now start at 10:00, and we devote our time equally to the paper and website, so that is a meeting where we look at what are the stories, how we are going to approach them, whether people have thoughts on things they can bring to us. >> who are the editors that are there? >> the head of the various news departments, culture, science, and so on. >> how many? about a dozen? >> about a dozen for a while we did not have an environmental says. now we do, and we have a media editor who is more independent, so it fluctuates. ahead of graphics comes. ahead of photography comes through rigorous -- net ahead

of photography comes. >> how many of the formal meetings the you have in the course of today? >> there are two main meetings -- a morning meeting, and a 4:00 meeting where everything that will go in the next day and also talk about a home page of the website. those are the meetings today is built around. >> you are representing the washington bureau. are you part of all of these meetings? >> we are on the speakerphone participating in a meeting, and to amplify what hill described, it's just describes what is best

for the front page and print -- each desk the scrub and what is best for the first stage, and you make a pitch of why you think it is the best for the front page. >> what do you think is your major responsibility representing washington? >> i think mine major responsibility is to sift through the mix of real news of today and to try to give phil a sense of the really significant stories in washington. good >> how many reporters work for do in washington? >> there are a total of 25 people and i guess about 28 or 29 of them are reporters. >> does that make it the largest euro outside of new york? >> yes. >> when in the day you have a

sharp feel for what is going to be in "the new york times" the next day? >> it depends. on a week when there is a major breaking news, when a country is in turmoil or you have a state of the union address, you know early on in the today what are the other pieces you are thinking about. in a slow news period, i may not know until the meeting at 4:00 and sometimes later than that. and we are looking at something substantive. it is more an art than a science. first you want a page to be dealing -- to feel urgent, not optional or lightweight. >> there are days when "the new york times" does not have hardly for the newspaper, and

you are prepared to go for something that would be described as a feature story. why do you to the hamas -- why did you do that? >> i would rather put some piece of reporting that this is something we discovered rather than some kind of incremental development in a running story that people will look at and say, so what? to do that, and in washington is particularly tempting because of legislation passes a subcommittee and moves through a committee and the house and the senate, and you can take each of those moments us of a moment to write a story, but nothing happened between steps one and step two and 73, so we tried to relegate incremental news to inside

stories and put things of from that feel more momentous. -- up front that feel more momentous. >> i remember 20 years ago i did some research on the front page of "the new york times" and went back 20 years ago and 10 and 5 and last year, and what i found was you used to run many more stories on the front page. you used to run many more hard news stories on the front page. you ran many fewer photographs on the front page, and they were generally smaller, so the front page 0 of "the new york times" today is quite different from 15 or 20 years ago. why the change hammond and -- why the change? >> it looks better. in the days when there would put

12 or 14 stories on the front page, most of them did not belong on the front page, but it was today when the newspaper was regarded as a pastiche of what was going on. even the slogan harkens back to a day when the aim of the newspaper was to be comprehensive. we are going to tell you a little bit about everything. that slogan may describe a mind- set, but now we tend to be more selective and now give you more pth to describe stories that are not obvious. days they used to put the comings and goings of ships in the new york harbor on the front page -- there are not that many ships in amor, and mostly they do not matter to the average

reader. >> you said there was a time when it was a comprehensive newspaper. are you saying it is not now? >> i do not think there is any such thing as comprehensive -- >> how would you describe it? >> we tell you what you need to know to be well-informed, but that does not mean that every minor incremental development, that every inconclusive lawsuit, that everything that is news at some level is important enough to be in eighth. >> why are so many feature stories and when there are hard news stories you could put on the front page? >> what have you got against features stories? >> i am of the sort who believes the newspaper as it skips smaller -- as it gets smaller,

which is the fate of recent years, because you do not have that much more room now, you want to level with the reader when give us the hard news of the tape. do you really have the time to consider the features? >> evidently, because we do a lot. there are a lot of hard news stories that do not justify the space, and there are a lot of features stories that tell us quite a bit. it tells us profiles of interesting people in the news that we want to understand because they are actors. we want to tell us something about the economy or an of people overseas. they are features, but they carry the values of the news.

they help you understand what is going on in the world the same way the news of some foreign official cost speech or the capital of denver's driven touching will tell you. >> -- and ribbon cutting will tell you. good >> i would ask what he says, but i will say something provocative. -- i would back what he says, but i will say something provocative. newspapers have always been a comprehensive. i see if they are a little bit fake comprehensive. -- ice think they are a little bit fake comprehensive. of otherissed the rise parts of the world but were much more significant. they might have fronted the fourth movement of the hill to another committee, but they

missed until very late in the dramatic shift in the way when in interacted in the workplace. the way women interested in the workplace. i would argue had newspapers have the sensibilities they have now, those would have been crafted as so-called feature stories, but they would have captured something much more significant at the time. >> that is possible, but what you are describing is the changes in american society. the idea that we did not focus on one incumbent region on -- on women, children, health, that is a fact, but that does not change the focus on hard news,

what the reader should know on any given day about the world. >> i would counter as someone who has looked back on papers, that that is our news. if u.s. gene roberts, -- if you ask gene roberts, he was the "ditor of "the new york times what are the latest stories he missed a as a journalist -- none of them would have been things people would have characterized as hard news. he would describe them as shifts, the biggest stories newspapers missed us being the kind of movement of blacks from

the south to the north, changes in the workplace, the events that led up to kent state. >> i would not argue with what you said, but every single one of those could have been and probably would have been a hard news stories. if 50,000 blacks move from a small-town into detroit, the affected had on detroit and was a news story. >> it did not happen that way it. it did not happen as an event the way newspapers were trained. >> when people talk about hard news, they tend to mean a events. the president did something today. there was an accident, a disaster. that is what people generally talk about when they mean hard news, but that does not cover

all whole realm of the investigative news and requires time and the gain, but i would agree it is some of the most -- it would require time, but i would agree it is some of the most worthwhile to report and we do. >> what is your competition today? >> that is something we ask ourselves a. >> "the wall street journal"? >> it is all of the above. is killed and at no websites, but even that -- i still look at websites, but even that has expanded. i read british website, the bbc, "the guardian." "the washington post" is still

a competitor. "the wall street journal" is a competitor, because it is the national journal. i look at politico, a huffington opposed, and so on. post, andffington opp so on, or somebody looks at him. >> what is your feeling about the major competition? what would bother you if -- what would bother you the most? >> by a small margin, "the wall street journal." now i do not like to be beaten by anybody. the fact of somebody fees us on a substantial website means it is -- these us on a substantial website means it is going to be all over the place.

it is not just the stories. they are competing with us for talent. they are hiring people. they are competing in the field of innovation. i do not regard the huffington opposed as an aggressive competitor on international affairs, but the way they use social media is a pretty constructive, and we watch that. >> we are talking about a very competitive world in journalism today. yous this competition mean fe have set quotas for reporters, but some stories that get more hits on a web site being rewarded financially? >> no, we have reporters that

right four or five stories a year, and they tend to be truly important, ground breaking stories, and we have people who write 400 stories a year. those people fall somewhere in between. there is a general question of productivity. if someone is not covering their assignments as aggressively as they should be, the black market gets it, but we do not measure the hits to the website and promote them accordingly. >> you have been chief of major newspapers. you have been a round of journalism of wild. your colleague, and jim roberts, says you live in a new time frame in which you work no longer a 24-7. now he says it is 1440-7,

meaning 1440 minutes today -- a day. that describes a new psychology in journalism. how do you managed that? >> it is tricky. balancing the website and a print paper reminds me of the new orleans paper. it is remarkably similar. you have to come up with the way to move the afternoon in addition, so there is a similarity here. it is tricky puree did it requires more decision-making -- it is tricky. it requires more decision- making. u.s. me what do i see my role as an -- you asked me, what do i see my role as government and --

as. i think the shift constantly paraded you have to work to maintain the white house report -- i think it shifts constantly. you have to work to maintain the white house reporter. a reporter will go to a press conference at kennecott 30 and go to lunch after time and -- at 10:30 and go to lunch after, and now the expectation is that we have to figure out a way to file the story for the web shortly after the press conference, and and we have to start thinking about what are we going to provide the reader for the print paper and navy for later in the day. it is an -- and maybe for later in the day. >> one thing is after congresswoman giffords was shot, the guys reported she was killed. you reported that because you

have someone in tucson who sent you that information. you reported that because cnn and npr have said she was killed. you used other news organizations as your sources. i checked this. you did say, news organizations say issue was killed three good technically, that was an accurate statement -- you did say, news organizations say that she was killed. technically, that was an accurate statement, but it was wrong. >> there is no such thing as an oak a mistake, especially when it was thought magnitude. -- as an acceptable mistake, especially when it is of that magnitude, even if it was only up for 7 minutes. the way you protect it is you send a clear message to reporters that it is nice to

get it first, but it is most important to get it right. >> these were the editors who made that call. >> it was essentially of the right man, and if slip past and -- a rewrite man, and it slipped past him. you have several people whose job is to challenge the material that has been supported. the third thing you do is you teach people it is ok to be explicit about what you do not know, and all of these are things we tried to do. i make no excuses for that particular blunder, and several people got a finger wagging over about, -- over that, but the fact is it does not happen that often, and it is kind of miraculous when you think about it. how do you put out of daily

newspaper and still keep up with his daily news report where things are happening all the time? my answer is that almost every day we do it. >> if the editing process for the newspaper the same as the editing process for the web story? >> yes and no. the standards are the same, and in most cases it goes through the same layers of editing, but it does this at an accelerated pace. it is very much like the editing a story gibson region -- gets. the story that broke 30 minutes before the deadline did not get the same attention as a story that broke in the morning. >> let me take a moment to remind our audiences they are listening to the kalb report.

i am marvin kalb. on "the times"you have news and opinion. there should be a wall between the two. the newspapers are laced with analytical and opinion pieces that work against the premise that the news is just the news. many conservatives criticize " ."e the times -- "a timthe times why do you allow this to happen? we do not allow this to happen. >> but it happens every day. according to people who have read "the new york times" for

many years. now there is more analysis thing into commentary, and the editorials, then a straight hard news stories. >> i did not mind analysis in the news stories. i encourage it every day. the discipline of objectivity is something natural in to american reporters from their first day on the job. -- something that is drilled into american reporters from the first day on the job. it is an aspiration, and reporters bring their own , and they their johb are expected as judges are supposed to set aside their preferences. reporters and judges are expected to lay their prejudices

behind. >> don't you believe there is more opinion, commentary, analysis today in the paper then there was 10 years ago? if the answer is yes, tell me why it. >> i think there is a lot more analysis it is about is what readers want and expect. >> aren't you making that assumption? maybe what they want is a straight news story and not your opinion. >> they do not get my opinion. if we are going to write a piece of political figure, it is a

service to readers. i do not think anyone is justified saying the congressman is wrong or a fool or unqualified, but you are certainly justified and expected to say, here is where his views come from. here is what his constituency is. here is what he said in the past. that is the analysis. >> there has always been a certain amount of opinion. there has always been a certain amount of opinions -- overviews, theater critics who regard >> that is different. -- now theater critics.

>> that is different. you will see cogent analysis coming from the white house. i think there is an extrication today -- expectation to dave the audience does not want us to save barack obama -- expectation today the audience does not want to say barack obama should have said this. there is an expectation that the writer put some of them in context. there is an expectation that the writer says it reminds people that the president was forced to make a certain comment on a policy issue because the last policy issues and were struggles

common region were struggles, but if you find as crossing the line, i would say that is a mistake, but i do not think that is the current arc. >> you are both acknowledging there is more analysis in the paper today, because your judgment is that the reader wants that more than a recitation of the straight story. >> you are saying they want your analysis of what the president meant. it reminds me during the vietnam war the reporters were told nine reporters what it was that happened and when the reporter was there watching it y does not need the

analysis of the colonel, but i am raising the question that maybe people want less of the analysis, unless you have done studies on this and concluded -- >> one thing i may have studied too much. when i say it is the readers' expectations, i am not saying there is a survey and other newspapers dictate it. i am saying the overall mission of the actual newspaper has changed hardly at all. the overall mission, which is to explain important advancements of the day before. i think the way of doing that had to change. >> it has always had to change. i would argue that is not based on readership surveys. that is based on if you have a

core mission you are responsible for, it stands to reason you are going to have to change the way you deliver it to reagan >> let's talk about this new thing. i am led to believe it allows me to gain access to the website if i pay for that are says. i would like to project a year or so in -- if i pay for that access. i would like to project a year or so in the future. what is that going to look like? >> there is a variety of on-line news. the one we are adopting a little later this year is a metered model. it means you get a certain amount for free, and beyond that you are expected to subscribe. most casual visitors will never encounter that billboard but

says we would like you to subscribe. people who are home subscribers will not encounter that either. we are saying people who use the new york times web site as their newspaper, something they spend a lot of time reading it should .ay for it we do not want to scare away readers, and we are prepared to make adjustments so we do not lose traffic to our website here. >> if i had of a subscription to the new york terms, -- "the new york times," i have accessed your website. you are dealing with mostly what

is on the web, and i am wondering as you make your calculations between a printed newspaper and the web, what is more important to you? how many people show up in both worlds? >> they are different questions. they still supply the majority of revenues that keep it going, but many more come to us in print. there are 1 million subscriptions to an independent newspapers each day. we get as many as 50 million people who come each month, as it is not quite an apples to apples metric. the numbers vary. there is a nielsen rating and a

couple of other numbers, but 50 million unique individuals come to the website every month. that number is growing. >> you have a separate staff for the newspaper and a separate staff for the website? >> not any more. when the website started out, it was in a separate building a. five or six years ago we decided that was a big mistake. you did not want to treat it like it was an afterthought. we have been gradually remaking it into a single news room, and

it is pretty much they're very good >> i have a question that always notice me. -- always bugs me. the reporter today works harder than 20 or 30 years ago, and it is because that reporter has to service so much. it is of a deal. a -- a big deal. when does the reporter have a chance to keep rather than just to produce -- think rather than just to produce? >> that is a good question. you do not want to turn them into hamsters on wheels. we created a real bright region

-- rewrite bank. if the reporter says are needed more time to think about this, we can provide time. >> you do not get a demerit for that, do you? >> no, it is true reporters do not like to let go of their story to anyone else, so more of them have come to think as filing for the unwed as filing their first draft, and they continued -- filing for the web as filing for the first draft. >> is if their first responsibility when he or she comes upon a fact or inside to provide it to the web? >> if they can do that quickly, then we can liberate them to go

to add additional reporting and have an additional analysis to the peace, then yes, but we tried to keep a lever in the hands of the reporter here. we are not a wire service. art a wire service of the premium is on speed. people come to us as an authority because they trust us to get it right. >> you are operating in a world that lives high-speed. -- on speed. >> psychology is different. >> you are asked to do something for the web the minute you have it. if you are going to write something decent, you want to

sit down anton talk to somebody and write it, so what is a responsibility for the journalists? to deal with just the web at that point? if you have a washington reporter, to say, i have something good, but i have to write it first for the web, and you allow them to do that? >> sure, we should differentiate between the factoid. i do not think people come to "the new york times" for the fact toward curing and we are not talking about the gigantic and running -- for the factoid, the big running story. if a reporter came to my office with a story about an unimportant and pointed -- appointment, and i had to balance that against a more

important story, i am going to say, do not put the unemployment factoid on the web, but if you are talking about a reporter who knows he is competing against the washington post or somebody else who is ready to write the story at 2:00 in the afternoon, i want the story up at 2:00 and in the afternoon. >> let's talk about the wikileaks phenomenon for a little bit. wikileaks is still leaking of secret document cables, many of them embarrassing and harmful to the united states. you have written eloquently about it.

there are a couple of questions. wikileaks seems to have an anti-american impulse. is wikileaks a legitimate source for "the new york times" ham? >> wikileaks is a source. sources tends to come with agendas. they come with thyestes. -- it is an anti-the united states, but every source comes with some kind of agenda. what you have to do is focus on the information you get. is the information true?

is it valid? is it of newsworthy? we knew at the outset there via cs end agenda, and we made it very clear we were going to treat them as a source and nothing more than that reagan -- nothing more than that. we edited any material we believe could put lives at risk. good we did not consult about and what we would write about. >> the you believe in wikileaks -- you believe in wikileaks is a legitimate news service? >> those are two questions.

i will more or less enter them because i am not a lawyer. i think somebody who has a job like mine should be humble about who gets to call themselves a journalist and who does not. wikileaks is not in my ball park of journalism. they do not practice the kind of reporting and we practice. they are an advocacy group for a vigilante group. the question of first amendment protection is a different question. it is a very tricky question for the lawyers, and i am not a lawyer. what is the difference between someone who takes a lot of raw material and publishes it on the website and someone who publishes it on the newspaper.

>> in a way, "the new york times" became the enabling of wikileaks by publishing a lot of stories based on stories wikileaks provided. >> i think in a blur is a wrong word. i think wikileaks and -- i think enabler is the wrong word. i think wikileaks were capable of publishing it on their own. they would have to publish it for anyone who wanted to look at it. people would have been picking out the information that was less interesting to them, using it in some interesting ways, some alarming ways, but it would be published. the difference between daniel

else heard and wikileaks is set nathaniel of her and really needed something like -- and wikileaksrnd is that he really needed something like five. >> but he went to congress and tried to get legal protection against the war. he went to harvard university, and then he went to "the new york times." we certainly gave a lot more attention and currency along with the other news organizations, but it also came out in a much more publicly valuable way. >> i totally agree with you on that. the question i am getting at is this. if "the new york times" had not published all of those stories

and it had been left to "the guardian" in london and other newspapers, it would have been reported in the united states on page 16. >> you are so wrong. versions of the story would have been on the front page of every newspaper in america. >> the you believe you broke many news stories? do you believe wikileaks gave you one thing you did not know about afghanistan? >> yes, i thought i learned a lot from those reports. i realize they did not tell us anything profoundly new about the world. the news moves in inches and feet. it moves in increments.

wikileaks told us the people who are running the war in afghanistan have grave misgivings about control -- the roll pakistan has. >> i could point to 28 stories in "the new york times" but said the same thing. all of the guys working in washington knew that and reported it. >> here is why i think you are wrong. it is an unimportant argument. i think - 8 over whether or not wikileaks had a new facts: -- the debate over whether wikileaks had a dramatic new factoid, i think that is sort of an odd argument. there is no question somebody who has been involved in some of

the stories about afghanistan and iraq, there is no question wikileaks added tremendously to the understanding anyone has about those wars in the world. it is one thing to have second and third hand report in excess of rulers of countries in the region who are afraid to see it publicly are very worried about the rise of iran and the nuclear capability. it is another thing to have it in a words of the damascus -- in the words of the diplomats. put aside the debate. isn't it unimaginable to anyone that "the new york times" would have had the arrogance to have the story like this and not to publish it. when the question has been asked

to meet now, isn't the new york times behaving in an arrogant way, and enabling wikileaks, to me the most unimaginable, arrogant thing "the new york times" could have done is to have this stuff, say, let's have an ethical debate and have lunch. that is shocking. >> you miss read me. >> i think i am using this as an opportunity to address other people. >> the crux of my question is based on a profound respect for "the new york times" and the position in global journalism so when he makes a decision he is making a decision not just for "the times,"but for american

journalism, too. that puts you in a special position. i think we have done about a topic. rupert murdoch. >> who? [laughter] >> is he good for journalism? >> he is spending a lot of money and playing journalist, -- employing journalists, so i have to applaud that. i do not think he loves news of a particular kind. his personal taste is more for "the new york post" tabloid journalism.

i think the most lasting affect is fox news. >> what is the effect on american journalist? >> i think it has created a level of cynicism about the news in general. it has contributed in a sense that they are all there with a political agenda, and i think that is unhealthy. i make no connection between the guy who shot those people in tucson and the national discourse, but it is true the national discourse is more polarized, and to some extent, i

would lay that at the feet of rupert murdoch. >> a quick question. hughes said of bob woodward of "the washington post" -- you said of bob woodward of would be in the nation and -- "the washington post" but if they had a chance to hire him, would save? >> i have enormous admiration for bob woodward and what he has done, and i have read a lot of bob woodward. the point of that remark was that in washington officials complain about secrets when they do not like them, unbutton they collaborate in dissemination -- but they collaborate in dissemination of secrets. this is a way of furthering the agenda.

>> there are a lot of journalist students of their. would view who -- out there. would you revise them to plunge into this or go to law school? >> of course i would encourage them to go into it. there are a number of places that are hiring again, not for large sums of money, but most of us did not start out in large sums of money either. what i generally tell aspiring journalists is less say news organizations dissolved and it becomes a free-for-all -- and let's say the news organizations dissolved and it , if youa free for all commo can present it in a way that is

engaging, you can work in a lot of fields. there are a lot of fields from lot to academia to science for those skills are -- from law to academia to science were those skills will serve you well. >> they you agree with that? >> i say with the rise of the web is probably more of a blast than it would have been 10 years ago. >> our time is up, and i want to thank our wonderful audience. i want to thank radio, television, and internet audiences all over the country and all over the world, but most of all, i want to thank our guests, two wonderful reporters representing "the new york times." thank you for being with us, and for all of you out there in a

free society, i am marvin kalb. goodnight, and good luck. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] that is the way it should be. we now have an opportunity for you all to ask questions you wish, and what you have to do region where is that microphone thomas -- what you have to do region where is the microphone? the microphone is on the right, so please go to the microphone, ask a question, identify yourself, and if i have the impression you are about to make a speech, i am going to cut you off. good >> i of the journalist student at george washington.

-- i am a journalist student at george washington. when you originally published the first round of wikileaks information in july, you included a comprehensive editor's note and personally answered readers' comments and questions. the new thing that it is important -- do you think it is important to open the door to your editorial room decisions like that? >> i do. it is unavoidable -- i do not think it is unavoidable, but it is useful to do that. i am sure marvin can cite polls that show the steady decline in trust in the american media, and i take those with a grain of salt. a lump all the media into one bastion. when people think of congress a thing thumbs down, but when they think of their own congressman,

it is thumbs up. there has been a steady erosion of trust in the media, and it is a useful way to regain some of that to explain what we do and why we do it. >> are you going to be doing that on a regular basis? not in response to a specific story, but every month you are going to do a column? >> we have been doing it on a regular basis, and we try to make it out. different people will take questions. here we have done them and with no particular prompting underground storage that generated controversy -- en with stories that generated controversy. >> there was an arrogance among the established press. you see any greater incidence of

the loggers and independent journalists? -- of bloggers and independent journalist? >> some of my best employees are loggers -- bloggers. we are past the point where that is a term of opprobrium. there are five words and good ones. there are blogs that have a huge audience of one red by two or three people -- that are read by two or three people. i think it is exciting and allows you to do things conventional four months do not. i sin

the one downside of being an editor is that you are farther and farther away from the news. >> when i have gone online to have a discussion with readers is pretty much a blogging experience. >> when you say there are 50 people at the "times."that have a block, -- blog -- >> some of them are hired to be

blocggers. her job is to be there for the new york times. >> i am a student at george washington university. over the course of its history, the "new york times" been awarded 104 pulitzer prizes. how does the new york times hope to maintain its journalistic excellence in the new digital age? >> i think that we are already doing that. much of the conversation touched on that. moving from print to principal makes challenges. there is a danger that you will make stupid mistakes. the internet is a ferocious did

you for opinions. -- the new four opinions. -- at the new -- venue for opinions. we have a videographer on the ground that is doing the kind of television work that i think most television networks would be proud of. >> it is a particular malady of journalists that we jump right to the-results -- to the negative results. this is the greatest thing that

has hit a since sliced bread. far more people read us online. for more people are reading as. -- reading us. when i was a kid growing up in new orleans, if you read a review, you only have access to the times picayune. of the world has gotten bigger and it is a good thing. we should not focus just on the pressure to maintain our standards as much as we should focus on this explosion that has made us more relevant. >> stuff comes in through social media. we did a series on putin's russia. before we published each article in the series, which translated

into russian and posted it on a popular russian website. the russian readership enriched our stories about russia. the guy that came up with that idea is a traditional print and journalist that relished the possibilities of this new tool that we have. >> bloggers that work for "the new york tim, are they encouraged to give their opinions? >> no. >> several columnists that our opinion writers have that license. we have a prolific writer that is a wonderful reporter. the people that the right are

not sanctioned to give opinions. some of those are the work of individuals. a number of reporters contribute on a regular basis. >> another writer follows the same standards. it is a traditional washington reporter. >> one of my students. >> yes? >> as a lawyer, i would just like to say that i second in the call to go to journalism school. regarding wikileaks, i am a big open government guy. i believe in open government. as journalists and reporters, you both have a big interest in

open government. i am wondering what the cost is to open government. it will likely continue to have the effect of reaction from people in government saying that this transparency was a bad thing, so we will not post documents to government agency websites. i guess that my question is that there has been a cost and has it been worth the benefit of running this material? >> i share your concern. what has nibbled at the back of my brain throughout this process is that it might become a pretext for some people who do not much like some of the

freedoms that the press has to essentially crinolines the publication of secrets. somehow make criminals out of journalists. that has worried me. so far, and i cannot foretell the future, but there has not been such a serious effort to do that. clearly, i think it is safe to say that diploma slink -- diplomacy has not been stopped in its tracks. some people were predicting that. if there has been a cost, so far, i do not see it as a cost that would have to justify withholding information. >> thank you for the very interesting evening. i am a loyal subscribers and i visit the site about 50 million

times a month. i was pleased to hear a conversation that was moderated on a similar topic. in that conversation, the question came up on the front page tonight. two years ago, the question was that there is a story about a tv network's decision to move the show to raise certain hour. was that worthy of a front-page coverage? >> that was jay leno. in terms of the turmoil in egypt occupying so much of the first case, what is the competition like if you hold off on enterprise reporting? >> it has been a very hard week.

i do not think that anybody would argue that egypt is not that important. we have a lot of good reporters on the ground, there, doing great work. some stories that would normally be on the front page were planted inside. some stories that are able to be held or being held. -- are being held. the front pages of the only page of the newspaper. none of the reporters believe me. >> if this story is being held, would be put on the web? >> it depends. if we have an investigative piece that is not competitive, but if we do not know how quick we will be able to get it into

the paper, may hold uit. >> i am wondering about the future that you see in collaboration with web only publications? you have a collaboration with studio 20 at nyu. do you see that happening more in the future? >> i think so. we have moved pretty tentatively and carefully into that role. we are working with pro publica. doing business with them it was fairly easy. the people who run the place our editors that we have known and respected for many years.

one of them has worked for me. they did not have a proving time to go through. we have collaborations in the san francisco bay area and in chicago and in taxes with on- line journalism organizations -- and in texas with on-line journalism organizations. we think those of been successful. week of that -- we vet the people and we read it before we put it in our paper and subject it to the editing readers of the new york times. as long as we are persuaded that we can experiment without putting the credibility of the paper at risk, we will try it. >> i am here with the washington

journalism center. i will start my journal and -- my internship tomorrow with a newspaper. when you have two guys applying for a job and you have one guy that had two years with a newspaper and one that did an internship, which to go with? -- who would to go with? >> everyone has a hiring formula. it is hard for me to discern between the two remains. you look at someone's riding and the way that they think -- writing and the way that they think. if the new york times -- york "the new york times" -- if "the

new york times" hired somebody, i think that the goal would be that you have to be able to write, not only because of obvious reasons, but the ability to write also shares the ability to think with some clarity. you have to be intensively curious about the world. the remains are less important than what your work shows about the skills. >> he spoke of one journalist that was a marine. one thing that we have found that we look for is diversity of experience. there are not enough people with military experience.

there are not enough people who are evangelical christians in the newspaper business. we are not going out and recruiting evangelical churches or a marine recruiting center for journalists, but for somebody who comes in, their background gives them a different perspective on the world and that is a plus. >> he said that journalism is in an experimental phase. believes that we might have held 15 or 20 years ago may not be applicable today. but how do we, at the end of the day, how can we be comfortable that the solid aspirations of journalism of years ago are going to continue today and the

rush to get things on the air and on the web. the pressures on reporters, it would seem to me that you have a huge responsibility beyond anything that an editor of the -- "the new york times" would have had years ago. >> that is a depressing description. i think that we have to constantly remind ourselves. the places that have high standards and high aspirations, we have to constantly remind ourselves to just print the fax. people have a lot of places that they can go to find out whether the stock market went up or down

today. they come to us because they want something more than that. they would like to be some idea as to why it went up for why it went down. what is working and what doesn't? that takes time and that takes reflection. we have to keep telling the world that this is what we are. we have to keep reminding ourselves of that. >> gentleman, you have been terrific. thank you all for being with us. [applause]

>> in a few moments, a forum on the global economic outlook. in 1.5 hours, a review of terrorist attacks. after that, and the discussion with the executive eric at -- executive editor and your chief of "the new york times". >> sunday, r emmet tyrell.

his latest books. join our 3 our conversation with your e-mail, phone calls and tweets. that is on booktv on c-span2. >> more now from the world economic forum with a discussion on the global economy. executives from china, india and several european countries are taking part. this is 1.5 hours. >> we are ready to go. welcome to this year's global economic outlook. it has been my pleasure and privilege to moderate this session for a little while. it has been interesting over the years. we have a panel that is immensely distinguished and quite large.

this is going to present an exceptional problem for the moderator, but i will do my best. despite the fact that we have a little more time than usual, it will be incredibly and wonderfully disciplined. let me introduce the panel and very briefly. i think i probably know everybody. to my left is the president of the world bank group and a new member of the bank of gold. next to him is my first boss. he is also deputy of the planning commission. next to him, another friend of mine.

next to him, is christine .agarde next to her is mr. george was born -- george osborne. next to him is bob diamond who has become chief executive of barclays. next to him is wolfgang schäuble. just to put very briefly the context, at the very recent imf update of the world economic outlook, last year was

exceptionally good. it was much better than some people expected. a 5% growth in 2010. it is funny money. real money was at 3% growth. if you look at the 5% growth, it it was a very divergent picture. in the big developed countries, 2.8% in the u.s. and 1.8% in the euro zone. the imf suggests that next year it will slow a bit to 4.4%. two 0.5% in the advanced countries with the u.s. at 3% in the euro zone at 1.5%.

this suggests that the general mood is more optimistic than the imf. the second point i would make in the introduction is that this is a world economy and it has been a to speed world economy since the year 2000. i would put forward a number that been bernanke -- ben bernanke gave us. he pointed out that if you look back at what has happened to the gdp of the emerging world and the developed world since the beginning of 2005, the former has grown by roughly 45% and the advanced countries have grown by 5%.

the final points, there are some very big risks and challenges which everybody knows about. is inflation a big risk? it is clearly a problem in a number of emerging countries. second question, what is going to happen to oil prices and events in the political sphere raise that regard. >> currency wars, there has been a lot of shift in global account balances, but there is a lot of concern that this will reverse and the conflict over exchange rates between the u.s. and china remains of -- remains very significant. how quick should it be? what are the risks of doing it too quickly or too slowly?

unfortunately, we do not have a representative of the u.s. government here. still, it is a very big issue. the root zone, where is it going? -- the euro the zone, where is it going? how are we going to exit from this massive stimulus that we had. a quite extraordinary of monetary stimulus. many people expected to be an issue. finally, there are geopolitical risks. whatever the general optimism, we have the capacity for plenty of things to go wrong. as an economist, it would be very depressing if that were not true. i will turn to bob for a brief

view as to where we are going. >> what you said of the multi speed recovery, in germany, and we are coming back strongly and for many of them, the challenge is overheating. ultimately, there is a risk of a boom-bust. the causes of inflation are different in each economy. some on the supply side and some on the demand side. those will be the issues that policy makers focus on. in the case of the u.s., as tim geithner said, there is a challenge in creating jobs and breaking the wave of the debt and deficit that overhangs the company -- the country. in europe, the focus is on

issues related to sovereign debt and trying to navigate through that. for all, there is the concern of keeping one's eye on the fundamental growth and how this relates to what you have written a lot about. >> thank you. a powerful agenda for the world. may i turn to you, christine lagarde for your perspective on what you see of the situation in france and the rose son -- bureau zone bureaueuro zone? -- euro zone? >> let me give you three numbers

on the euro zone. let's not forget that the deficit numbers were the same between the imf and the commission. that is the deficit relative to gdp. concerning that, it was about 84%. the growth will be between 1.6% and 1.7%. when you constantly bashe this, the numbers are not relative to other numbers in other parts of the world. having said that, growth is picking up but it is not picking up at a fast speed.

but not find that particularly stressing. when we look at gdp per capita, it shows us that there is still a long way to go for the adjustment to occur a. it is picking up a little slowly for 2011. but with the massive restructuring that is taking place car i think -- place, i think that we will see growth. >> may i turn to you mr. schäuble?

germany's exports remain outstanding. are we seeing a strong pickup in domestic demand in germany and how to you see issues from the point of view of germany in relation to the euro zone? >> first of all, i would say we had growth last year. but you had to keep in mind that is compared to 2009. of course, [unintelligible] the forecast is about two 0.2% and two 0.3%.

germany was destroying growth in europe and the global economy by reducing our deficit. for germany, it was decided [unintelligible] as you can see, last year, we were successful. i think the forecast for global economy [unintelligible] we hadn't to regulation and too

much liquidity. we had to fight the main reason for 2008. we must not lose the momentum. >> one point that you're reminded me of is that if you look at -- if you take the six largest advanced countries, three of which are represented here, in the third quarter of last year, gdp was still below where it had been in 2008. the latest u.s. numbers show that are above that. it gives you an indication of how deep the recession has been and how we are still below the peak.ding wee

let me turn to you, george osborne. you might want to comment on where you think the u.k. is going. >> the challenge is to move on from securing financial stability. i sit on this panel as the finance minister. i think sustainable growth and financial stability are possible. they were disappointing. it was a challenge for the government over the next year or

so. we need to remove the obstacles to stronger growth. that is what we will be focused on. there is a civil awning, -- a silver lining. exports are up fairly strongly and business confidence is improving. the government to plan is comprehensive and credible deficit reduction to put beyond a doubt the u.k.'s credit rating and to keep market interest rates low. second, competitive tax reform. we are cutting our corporate tax rates and reforming control of companies. president obama is independently proposing quite similar things in the united states. third, structural reform to the

welfare system, education, some of the regulation or around non- financial business. for me in the u.k., u.k. corporate is sitting with cash on its balance sheets. what i need to do is to start investing that money. >> thank you, very much. we will come back to these issues and what is a strong european consensus. i would like to turn to you. this seems to be relevant to what i understand for india. when you hear this sort of discussion and you try to look

in your own context at home, what do you think the likely outcome this, the rest to stability? >> i think that india's experience reflects what people say about emerging markets. we have a very smart recovery. our estimates this year, the year that ends in march is that growth would be about 8.5%. i think that the imf, which has been criticized for being too pessimistic is thinking that we might do even better. it is wonderful if we do. inflation really is a concern. the good news is that gdp growth is a 0.5% in the bad news is that in december, inflation was at 8.5%, well above what we think it should be.

we have taken steps on the monetary side. we have reversed the losing of monetary policy. there was some supply soared shocks -- supply-side shocks. i expect that on the fiscal side, we will grow fiscal stimulus. we will know the exact numbers of the end of february, but the finance minister plans to continue consolidation. we expect to see a reduction in the fiscal debt for the year 2011-2012. in his objective remains how to maintain a robust growth rate. there is not that much fun you last -- that much fun utilized -- unutilized facilities.

on the whole, things look quite good. there are uncertainties. that is pretty much what the global community is worried about. if you have an unexpected and large a spike, that would create problems. we are also concerned about financial stability, possibly because of the concern about sovereign debt in the euro zone. if the financial situation remains stable and the emerging markets are not disrupted by any event, then i think that we would be in a position to achieve the objective of getting 9% growth. at this is not decoupling as is sometimes talked about. this is an increase in the growth rate of emerging market countries which is going through a process of catching up. the industrialized countries are moving slowly, but i do not

believe that the emerging market countries will carry on with growth if you do not bring about stability. we are making sure that the global balance is somehow maintained. otherwise, on the supply side, things look good and on the price front cut it is manageable. >> thank you, very much. the same issues arise in china. there is discussion of inflation and managing extraordinary growth. how to you see the challenges for china and then maybe you can come to the policy questions. >> compared with the other countries, china's situation is much better. mostly, these programs are

created by channels that exist. now, we are facing challenges in areas of inflation. at the same time, we are also worried about the bubble. this has slowed down the growth of housing prices. the potential demand for houses is still tremendous. there is a war [unintelligible] you have to loosen the policy. so far, so good. i am not worried about the short

run prospects of the economy. just like in 2008, i have [unintelligible] this would grow public debt. if you are talking about public debt, it may be next year. so, the chinese economy is ok. for the longer run, if china fails to make a fundamental judgment, over the past 30 years, our growth has been

tremendous. this is categorized by two things. these two policies, i think, have run out of steam. if we can really make fundamental changes, then the growth will be sustainable. now, we are formulating -- you cannot plan for months. according to our intention, in the next five years, china's growth will be lower, may be lower than 8%. -- maybe lower than 8%.

>> thank you, very much. that is an extraordinary success of these two jive countries. i think it is very helpful. i am happy to admit this. back in any year 2008, many people were skeptical. that is pretty important to remember. i will finally turn to you, bob diamond. this is your opportunity to respond to the distinguished policy makers. how does it look in the financial sector? we are going to talk about whether the world economy and what you are going to do to make it better. >> we had a lot of time to

discuss this over the past few days. what the chancellor said resonates with our feeling. it begins with jobs and economic growth. of jobs is really the single biggest key. i think it begins with the recognition that after a time of fiscal and monetary stimulus , that the developed economies will be reducing spending in the public sector. the president talked about it in his state of the union address. the conclusion is that we are not going to see stimulus coming in terms of jobs from the public sector. it is time to move the mantle of growth from the public sector to the private sector. there is a eight trillion dollars -- $8 trillion in cash

sitting on the balance sheets of the very healthy corporate sector. if we can get the confidence to get the banks and the company's working together to drive economic growth, we can be pretty optimistic. it is currently at 9.4%. as a dog-franc has been resolved, -- dodd-frank has been resolved, our feeling is that if we can keep up that confidence and momentum in the u.s., the unemployment rate will be 8.5%, not 9.5%. >> i think it is clear that the

general perspective of cautious optimism with large challenges is shared by everybody. before i move on to the g -- to 20to the g20 -- tv agenda, what are the global, sequences -- global consequences. there has been a lot of concern in emerging countries about the difficulty of managing the global consequences of these super easy monetary policy is. if you focus on domestic concerns in india, are the international factors of importance to you?

what would you like to say to the developing countries about that? >> it is a good example of where the coupling is the wrong word to say -- decoupling is the wrong word to say. as far as excessive easing of monetary policy is concerned, one side of that reflects the policies emerging from [unintelligible] we do not know if there is hope in achieving that monetary policy. given the fact that there is a huge amount of liquidity around, -- i cannot speak for other countries, but we are concerned that we do not want short-term flows. as it happens, we are currently running a deficit. we need to finance that deficit

with long-term close -- flows. are quite happy if money comes into the stock market and we are not happy with money coming in in the form of short-term debt. we do have some capital controls. i think that developing countries need to make sure they do not get swamped by flows beyond their ability to cope with them. different companies are doing a different ways. there is no global increase -- global agreement. to the extent to which the liquidity is the results of an unsatisfactory overrun, it is

having some collateral damage of fact. i do not think it is affecting ndf at the moment. -- india at the moment. there is some weakening in the last few months of a direct investment flows. we think that is the time lag effect. a lot of foreign direct investment decisions had to be postponed. you're seeing that in the year 2010. otherwise, if it remains an attractive destination for foreign investment, we expect that. >> can i just follow up and address this question to you? if i remember correctly, china's reserves have risen over $800 billion. it has been a slower

appreciation. you were talking about inflation concerns. is one solution to accelerate the appreciation? what do you want the rest of the world's monetary policy to be? how big of an issue is that? >> i should say that i am speaking on behalf of myself. there is a fundamental difference between china and india. in the it is a borrower and china is a creditor. one is an exporter and another is a creditor. [unintelligible]

the trouble is, china is the creditor. if something is wrong in the united states, [unintelligible] this is a big worry. china should allow india to have more exports because if we continue to run to the suburbs, china [unintelligible] this mostly resulted in .ccumulation period

[unintelligible] by doing so, i think that this argument, -- >> go ahead. >> this is not just in the united states, but also in china. this is more difficult. >> that leaves very properly to the g20 agenda.

there are skeptics. journalists are always among the skeptics. some say that the g20 had its glory days during the crisis and now there is no real further progress to deal with the big issues. france clearly as the agenda, and quite an ambitious agenda. can you set out what you want to achieve this year and what you think the priorities are in terms of animating forward movement in the g20? g20 was say that the only worth it in a time of crisis. hopefully, the agenda will resonate not just with the happy few, but with everyone. i would like to point out two chapters.

one is the chapter we are curators of proposals that have been made in the last couple of days. that includes financial regulations where we need to be careful and not get diverted with other agendas. the second is the framework for growth initiatives. where the actual decisions will be made in the g20 make sure that we coordinate our policies. i would call that the curators job that we have to make sure that it is done. it needs to continue. in the new chapter, the new initiatives, i think it really resonates with what he was saying.

number one is the improvement and reform of the international monetary system. being very humble about it and understanding we are not going to change the articles overnight. all important players are at the table and we restore the level of confidence. this is the two key objectives we need to address. we can see about the issue of reserves, but i think this is important so that everybody is in the game. the second part of that big chapter of new initiatives concerns the commodity prices. we do not want to be diverted to

much. i think it is a key issue. it is a key issue because we need to feed the world and that is growing. we need to make sure that there is enough transparency. enough thinking put into the process. but just in speculation, but that is really a chapter that is important. the third section in my second chapter is the issue of development. we have been talking about development. the world bank has been fantastic in conducting initiatives. we need to focus on the topic of infrastructure, to arrive at a list of the infrastructure where we have identified the infrastructure projects that are worth it and would be conducive to development and would-be

finance will -- financeable. all players, particularly the emerging players, but all those are represented. >> i would like to turn to you bob zoellick. you wrote a book on the monetary system. agricultural projects and the whole issue of commodity prices and agricultural prices. that is a very big global issue. we do not have this. what is your view of what is feasible for the g20 two to and

how would you comment on the agenda that christine lagarde let out? >> there have been doing an excellent job of trying some ideas and out of reach. the reason why this is particularly important is there is sensitivity between countries that are not in the g20. we template part of the intermediate and roll, -- into mediate -- there are certain topics were you can nudge along, but there are some that are targeted for action. i think that the agriculture topic is one that is very important. we have financial safety nets. everybody here recognizes that there may be some need for some food safety nets. we have suggested to put food first on the agenda.

one is a topic that has been discussed. president obama took some leadership on this. there have been a number of private companies here. they take the advantage of the increase in demand. there is also the food price volatility. there maybe some modest stocks in areas that have poor infrastructure, like the horn of africa, that we can come up with a package. there is a good combination on agriculture. the developing world is about

half of global work. there has been a lesson coming out of the 1990's, where you can invest in infrastructure today to create jobs, but you are also creating future productivity. his interest in public-private partnerships, how to make this work. there is a lot of important work already going on in this area. i agree with the french suggestion that we try to focus on connecting this. we have some good projects and energy, transport, communications, that could help break the barriers down of some of these smaller economies. on the monetary system, you have touched would on the elements. we are in a state of evolution here. the best that one can put forward was to develop a

framework which might encourage the future shape. one key point that people should not lose sight of is that the g- 7 you still have a practice of having flexible exchange rates, not intervention, unless they all agreed. that is a very important key for the system. monetary policies, but we have this issue. people can develop lessons and codes of conduct. you have the issue of china. some people are talking about, can you use it as a new international currency but as a form for trying to encourage china to move more quickly. you have the imf as a role in the effort -- as a referee and the. you have a provision in the wto

their reflections the -- that reflects the trade and exchange rates. these are the topics that you could move the process forward, it is an evolutionary force, but you could have productive results. the key thing where i see an added sensitivity from the developing countries is that the g-20 needs to proceed in a way that also recognizes attention for a non g-20 members. >> i would like to go on with this. we have a few other issues. we can always come back to this. there has been a significant crisis in the last year. many people have felt that the

euro zone was behind the curve. people are much more optimistic this week. a sense that very strong statements have been made. very clear commitment and that seems to the change the mood about the. -- about this. whether you think we have got to managing the crisis and what happens next? we know that there are discussion about longer-term reforms of these surveillance system. there is a lot of discussion of how the debt restructuring should occur. there is also discussion of more money. where do you see this euro zone going?

there might be further big shocks here. >> i did not expect that there will be. the euro will be stable. i think that what president sarkozy has said in the world economic forum will be built up. the main problem is that outside the euro, people do not really understand a common european currency with a monetary policy without a global economic policy. we had to learn that the systemic contagion problem we will deliver.

you'll see. we are ready and we are able to defend the stability. of course, it is difficult. there is a lot of discussion. my fear is that we have too much discussion. it is one of the reasons why we suffered problems in europe. they're not as bad compared to other parts of the world. of course, we will draw of the consequences in the euro zone. it is a common arrangement. it is already decided. we have a task force and we agreed on a lot of proposals.

we will harmonize our current economic and global policy is to improve competitiveness and all memberships. to increase the competitiveness and member states of the world organization. to defend the euro as a whole if some memberships. it will take time. but we are totally convinced that we will succeed. >> there has been a major financial sector shock concerning some countries in the euro zone. do you feel that confidence is returning? and there are still huge spreads on the debts of some countries.

what would you like to see? >> the sense from the banking perspective is that we had a period that was acute and the crisis was truly a cute. the worst case looking for work, because of the commitment and the strength that the euro is going to hold together, is that we will have the ability, but it would be more a chronic as opposed to acute. i do not think that anyone is saying that the volatility in the markets is completely gone, given some of the fiscal issues that the different countries in europe are facing around spending and deficits. there is a chronic issue -- what was an acute issue a year ago is at worst a chronic issue today. >> do you want to add anything?

one pretty big issue is clear that people expect restructuring of the debts of some member countries. we still do not know how that will happen. it is difficult to persuade people to lend large amounts of money to a government. that seems rather a contradiction. >> i would like to disagree with diamond. when he says that it has gone from a kid to chronic -- acute to chronic, i disagree with that. we went through a crisis in 2010. no doubt about it. we had to put in place a rescue package. in the process, we transgressed

all of the rules, commons -- common principles that would prevail. we went through them -- we went through that, talking allots, -- talking a lot. we put in place the european financial stability funds in a matter of a week. it went to market a couple of days ago. it is an indication that on the market of confidence, the euro zone has turned a corner. having said that, we are working hard. i disagree with you, bob. in terms of fiscal consolidation, we are all heading in the same direction. we are consolidating. some people will criticize us. look at sweden, for instance. it is outside the euro zone, but it has produced very strong

fiscal consolidation measures. let's not short europe and the euro zone. we are heading in the same direction we are producing significant reform and we are determined to -- take the job or it was left unfinished. we decided have a single currency. that is a symbol of european unity and something that we strongly believe in. but we also have to go a little bit further. we have to have in place additional factors. macro economic review, preventative action, corrective action, proper sanctions. this is what we are volunteering now. in 2004, you the germans and french did not comply with the rules. we learned from our mistakes. we learned from the crisis. this is what we want bread you

want to be together. we have helped those that are in trouble. we have a fund in place. we're working on refining and improving it. >> [applause] >> wild enthusiasm. a wild enthusiasm. we contributed to packages. are you looking -- are you happy with what has been done? >> i think we have to add a three things right. the thing that we have right, the euro zone themselves are working on the permanent stability mechanism. in the next couple of months, we expect feedback -- to see that in place.

we are contributing to putting it together. the second thing that is working is the individual european countries are addressing their own domestic problems. actually, governments in countries like spain and portugal and elsewhere are taking difficult decisions to address their own problems. different countries have different problems. ireland clearly has a huge banking problem. portugal has a competitiveness problem. individual countries are putting their own houses in order. the third thing, a challenge for all of us, is the overall competitiveness of europe. i think the european union has been good at presenting a

challenge to us. we have had the lisbon agenda. we have had the 2020 agenda. the approach is going to be in the pudding. the proof is going to be, it's time we make the european union and more competitive place to do business? you start with an assessment of what is the cost of doing business in europe? the cost of doing business in the united states? look at the measures of that. but that would not be a bad place to start. siebel we can do. -- see what we can do. people are skeptical that europe can deal with these problems. there were plenty of obstacles in the past of creating a single market. the creation of the single market was a remarkable achievement that brought an increase in productivity and growth to the european union. i think the challenge for all of

us is to really drive this agenda for worse over the next year or two. >> you will not like this, i know. this is a dialogue about competitiveness in europe. british government of both persuasions have been mounting this for many years. i wish you success. there is a very nice shift in the last subject. it is the financial situation and it -- is the situation and the financial sector. the central issue here -- we talked about ireland. ireland has just taken a very large package. it is very controversial. if you look at irish public

debt, which is now scary, it is a very significant measure because the debt of irish banks to other creditors has been nationalized and is not going to be a burden on the irish people for a long time. very, very controversial. this reminds us into very strong waves, this incredibly incestuous relationship between government and the financial system. where do you feel we have got to -- the government is so

determined not to have to do this again that they have been arguing, what is the balance? have they got this balance right? >> it was a very interesting discussion. we have ceo's together. we have an opportunity to meet with the finance ministers and what was the message that we wanted to deliver. it was a very heartfelt thanks. we have to recognize that, of course, there is some fatigue. there is an awful lot that has changed in the last three years. we should say thank you to the central bank, to the finance ministers, to the regulators because banks are operating in a safer system. we have entered a lot of -- we

of answered a lot of questions about leverage. there is some fatigue. there was also a message that is during the crisis, the g-20 came together in a way that was very beneficial for the financial system. there is some worry that as the crisis and we are back to business as usual, there is a very strong wish on the part of banks and insurance companies that the positives of the g-20 integration and how well as work together to create a balanced set of proposals and rules and regulations also ensues. finally, the message, martin, was that the banks and insurance companies definitely want to play a role in helping the major economies create jobs and create economic growth. those are the messages that came out.

it was a very constructive meeting. a meeting where we recognize that a lot has changed in the system today. it is safer and sounder, though not perfect. >> if we had another significant set of difficulties in some institutions, could we actually manage them without another round of public rescues? >> there are two answers to that. the difference between the strength of the individual institutions and the risks in the system. we have to balance both of those. i think there is a level at which you can focus on the individual institutions when the focus should be marked on the system. that led into a pretty good discussion in the meeting this morning, the combined meeting, about too big to fail, resolution and recovery, and what would happen. the situation is very, very clear.

we have clients, government, corporate pension funds, the of very complex needs. we have -- we need large banks that can operate across borders. we have to be able to wind them down if a problem and sears. there is not a sense that today, that could be done over a weekend. there is a lot of very positive work going on. we are working closely with the ssa on a resolution recovery, on structures for contingent capital structures, we do believe that the way that we run larger financial institutions can be done in a way that is consistent with resolution and recovery. while that is not final, through the g-20, we do believe we can get there. >> there certainly have been

some complaints from some people here that governments are over regulating, there are dangers associated with that, you and other governments are contracting demand from the public sector. are you given the mixed messages? are you getting it right? >> when you face the biggest banking crisis in 80 years, fixing the system is never going to be something that takes place overnight. there are a number of components that are in place. it took a decade to agree. it's a 12-13 months to get the proposal through.

europeans need to -- britain needs to put it into european law. america needs to implemented as well. we are changing the way we regulate banks in britain. we're putting the bank of england in charge. we have such a large banking system relative to our gdp. of these so-called too big to fail, you are the one who has to give me the answer to that. >> don't worry. coming sen. >> i am sure you'll be very certain. >> you have demonstrated that you are completely independent. the third thing i would say is that -- this is a very difficult there is

understandable anger in the political system and with the public dependent. -- the public opinion. the british government is trying to reach a new settlement with the u.k. banks. they lend more into the economy. they contribute more taxes. the bonuses are smaller. they make a greater contribution to society prayed at the same time, the u.k. government makes it explicit that it was the u.k. to be the undisputed european home of finance. we are working on that. we have not discussed it at davos. i hope we can reach the settlement. we will only do it if it is a good deal. i am sure that applies to both sides of the discussion. i think it would be a good thing if we can achieve it. that is what we are working on.

>> what was your perspective on regulation? >> i will like to add a slightly different notes. beware of unintended consequences. whatever regulatory people think they're putting in today will probably not be designed. -- resigned for the next crisis. -- designed for the next crisis. i suggested that we do a review and feedback for these new requirements. just to give you one very clear example -- we have this discussion, they have a signed a capital requirement for trade finance.

they are planted lee assuming that all of these developing countries banks are weak. did you talk to standard chartered, the difference in terms of capital allocation in their risk model is the widest range of anything in their assets portfolio. there will be big consequences of this. there will be a lot of these. that is just one of these. we can offset that one. whatever is done, you will need feedback groups. >> martin, this whole issue of whether regulation throttles credit. looking at it from a point of view of developing countries, a lot of what was called financial innovation was directed at trying to present in the

industrialized financial markets instruments that were supposed to be at low risk. frankly, the real returns are in developing countries. in one sense, i would say that some of the financial innovation actually prevented -- the risks that are associated with them at pretending they're brave lot of high returns-low risk incident. i would hope that what it will do is to redirect finance. if you really want high returns, if the developing countries are growing at 6.5%, that is where capital should be going. we should be trying to reduce the risk associated with that.

we know exports are enormously high risk. we have a huge advantage. a new consensus on how to run the central financial system is emerging well before we are anywhere near so officially integrated. we can watch all of this evolve. we have to liberalize our own rules. will be better positioned if you have a better disciplined, better regulated financial system. you should not push it too much. some of the skepticism about the g-20 miss is the fact that major institutional changes are taking place with a lot of the major developing countries. even if they are not driving the change at the moment, at the

very fact that they are there, gives a greater sense of ownership and relief to a better abolition of an institutional framework -- a better resolution of an institutional framework. this'll be the first normal g-20 -- we will meet after one year. every g-20 earlier has met every six months. that creates too much of the pressure of what we will do for our next merkel. -- miracle. >> there is a very close connection between this agenda for financial innovation and the global monetary system and a macro economic system we had earlier. if what you describe is going to

happen, that risk capital will flow very heavily, that has implications for the exchange rate. it has implications for monetary policy. it has implications for reserve management policy. it is part of the currency wars. that is what they mean did we have all this money coming in. this is a very close integration of the two agendas. these are just two sides of one coin. >> do not look to the g-20 to produce a magic bullet every time. the fact that there is an intergovernmental process is special. it is helping to evolve better understanding of the limits of what is possible. a better examination -- are we

doing this sort of approach? are we trying to do it by getting better coordination? i do not expect this to get resolved in one year. everybody is sitting around the table and having a better understanding of what the issues are. >> we hope that we do not muddle through into another crisis on this scale. >> the best way for the banking sector to say thank you is to actually have good financing of the economy, sensible compensation, and reinforcement of the capital. >> what she is saying is that gratitude is not enough.

>> we have had a very fascinating conversation. i need a light. i need some light so i can see people. >> we are global venture-capital list. this is about the global economic outlook. half of the world's population is probably under 25. this is a generation that is totally connected and his unemployment rates generally are probably twice the average

unemployment rate of depopulation as a whole. what kind of problem is this going to present as you have this totally connected generation? what kind of impact is that going to have? >> very good question. is there somebody at the back? next person. >> george osborn said that one very important component to fixing the european problem is for countries to make a bold steps to get their house in order. why doesn't every country that wants access to the rescue package in europe formulate its own fiscal rules and then

establish a commission that implements these rules by telling the government what these surpluses should be. >> i will take one more question. >> i wonder what the other ministers think about the gold standard. >> no more goldbugs, please. youth unemployment around the world. connected use, as we can see, even in poor countries, what kind of problems does that create for the country -- for the economy? you must see this problem and so

many other member countries. >> it comes up with a real increase in frequency. some of those countries have made good progress in reducing poverty. in some ways, that also created expectations that they were not able to meet. in general, almost everywhere i go, what i find is that the original focus on the millennium development goals of primary education is expanding to the quality, the secondary education, and the workforce connection to jobs. i think this has been a davos contact, something -- the connection of the private sector to try to see how to prepare people better for the job market will be an important part of policy. when you talk about some of

these trends, we did not talk about demographics. when you have a younger educations, -- younger populations, that that should be a plus. >> china is a smaller problem than india. the reduction in -- you both have stupendous challenges. look at what is going on in tunisia. how do you seek the big challenge and can you meet it? >> it is absolutely true that we have a large number of young people and they are connected. governments are constantly made aware of the tremendous expectations that have been raised.

democratic process provides a lot of a sense of participation being heard. we are facing the consequences of a yawn connected population -- young conducted population. it does put pressure on the system. in close as means different people -- different things to different people. as far as the young people are concerned, the dominant thing is that they need to be skilled and educated in a manner in which they can have a pretty good expectation that they will benefit from the enormous opportunities. i do not find amongst young people and the pessimism. i do find tremendous demand. there are a lot of opportunities and there will be even more. we have to educate them better than we do. that is not a bad set of pressures for a government to be

under. education in india, at all levels, is one of the top priorities. >> how do you see this challenge? >> this is a question that i do not think i am in a position to give a good answer. i see this in a -- this is very good. perhaps we have a modern -- more than 3 million people using the internet. young people are connected. that is totally wrong. people can say what ever they want in the internet.

i do not know what will be the consequences. >> i need to move on to the second question. each member country of the euro zone should have its own fiscal rules and fiscal policies implemented by some independent body. it does raise a fundamental question. what is the relationship between national parliaments, euro zone rolls, and fiscal responsibility with then this unique hybrids structure? -- within this unique hybrids structure? >> it is the key problem of the common currency in the euro zone.

we do not have come and fiscal policy. we have to work on the consequences. given the spreads, if a member is not able to sustain, it has to ask for assistance. then its sufferers. therefore, they do not like to ask for assistance because it is a hard thing to accept it. we want to create a more comprehensive and more sustainable way.

in the end, it is quite clear. there are two alternatives. one is that we find a better way to coordinate our fiscal policy. we not only have agreements and we stick to the agreements, the world would look much better. what we've learned in the last year is that we have to draw

clear consequences to convince markets. in this way, the end will be that everyone here will be better to stick to the obligations which has been agreed, and we have learned from the spirited -- from business. -- from this. >> i want to go back to the earlier discussion. when i referred to market volatility, we will still see some volatility. i recall, i think it was 1992, i

worked on that issue. from the beginning, the motivation for what we are doing in europe was clear. the issue last week, i thought it was 10 or 11 times oversubscribed. the key to that in terms of taking the issue off the table, the real thing was the investors. the investors were real money. it was not speculative money. it was real long-term pension fund type of money. the question of the strength of europe and is the euro going to stay together or was last year's issue and is off the table. the consensus of the meeting decided then that is that we will still see some volatility in the markets. >> if there were aid to anyone

euro-wide bond market, it could be a very attractive market? i will push that further. i know this is a big issue. >> i welcome the headlines pushing -- i never suggested a gold standard or a returne. i believe you need to have a system moved toward flexible exchange rates. within such a system, i believe that gold will be an indicator. it is not an operational tool, an informational tool. it is not surprising to me that traditional central bankers do not like this. they do not want people to question the nature of their policies. what i was suggesting is that markets reflect the reality.

i believe he should face the reality. what you have seen in terms of the price of gold was an indicator of lack of confidence in the court of currencies. the one they would like to get into -- if you have the imf played this referee will and looked at indicators to try to see how the different policies are relating, i believe that gold should be one of those indicators. that is not to a gold -- that is not a gold standard. >> you think there is a perfectly reasonable concerned about the thought of monetary policy being pursued by a number

of major central banks? if they looked at this as an indicator, the implications would be raising rates are ready. >> i do not think it is the only indicator, but yes. markets are telling you something about monetary policy. also what they believe the long- term growth prospects are. >> you are using aggregate demand all the time. >> of course. >> that as well as other indicators tell you something. if you are going to have a flexible system, i do not think it is so bad to have a market check would to the imf can look at about the prospects of growth and the prospect of monetary policy. you talk to a lot of people and the markets today, they will expect inflation and the future.

they will either restructure or have inflation. that is not a shock to people in the markets. >> are any of you brave enough to comment on why the monetary policy system is defective right now? i thought so. we do not have a central banker on the panel right now. i would love to discuss this question with ben bernanke or jean-claude trichet. we have run out of time. before i sum up, i'd been asked to remind you to the japanese prime minister will be giving a message immediately after this. you are asked very kindly to stay and hear him. we have not had anybody from japan here on the paddle. it is an opportunity to find out what this country thinks.

i have failed to shake the policymakers from their competence but they are in control. at the moment, we are definitely in a post crisis mode. confidence is very substantial, but fortunately, there are enough for is out there that maybe confidence will not become extinct over the next year. we can get it through the next year, there is a very strong sense of that on this panel. it has been a long list of risks mentioned. youth unemployment, a long list of very large issues out there. the general perspective is that we got through this crisis, thank you. there was striking confidence --

astonishing -- that the political commitment to the euro and that this system is going to survive. this is ultimately a political structure and the political heads of government that are relevant have clearly committed themselves to it. i think you have been warned on that. we have added to a substantial already agenda. a number of very important issues. it will be a very busy meeting. if any person can pushed through an agenda successfully, it is

somebody as dynamic as mr. sarkozy. finally, we got a very nuanced picture on the financial sector. not too much complaint about over regulation. i did attend one meeting in which one senior banker expressed very strong positive confident about the future about lending. that was the single most frightening moment that i had in the conference. i think we have had a very wonderful discussion of the many, many issues and i would like to thank the paddle. -- panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> there is no other white ford. -- there is no other way forward. >> step-by-step, we're putting ourselves on a better more sustainable path and pushing ahead on the road to growth. >> find and watch this year's state of the state addresses. with every program since 1987. >> in a few moments, a review of last year's terrorist attacks and what they mean for this year.

in about two years, a discussion with the executive editor of "the new york times." after that, we will be aired the world economic forum on the global economic outlook. on "washington journal, we will talk about the situation in egypt. former deputy assistant treasury secretary will take your questions about proposals to cut federal spending to reduce the deficit. the will look at the administration's plans for infrastructure spending. "washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00. >> every weekend, experience american history tv, starting

saturday at 8:00. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here historic speeches by national leaders. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. all weekend, every weekend. >> a forum on what last year's terrorist attacks might mean for this year. panelists include the ambassadors from spain and morocco, a former intelligence professionals and scholars. this is two hours. >> ladies and

>> it is my privilege to welcome you here today. is unfortunately another gathering to talk about terrorism. for more than a decade, the potomac institute has been privileged to host these sessions, reviewing terrorist acts and the status of terrorism over the past year. unfortunately, it appears that the skirts of terrorism continues to grow and spread around the world, and unfortunately, we will probably be having these meetings for many more years to come. it is, as i said, the privilege of the potomac institute to be one of the hosts for this session. at the potomac institute, we have the international center for terrorism studies, headed by professor alexander, who i'm sure most of you know has been responsible for studying and writing about terrorism academically for more than 40

years and is the author of more than 100 books on almost all subjects of terrorism. cosponsoring today's event is the into university center for terrorism studies, also directed by professor alexander. we are very privileged once again to have our partner, the into university center for legal studies at the international law institute as a cosponsor, and we will have closing remarks from prof. richard professor wallace, chairman of the institute, told us join us here today. they've been a longtime partner and friend in the study of these very important issues. as i mentioned at the outset, unfortunately, terrorism as an act of as someone said political discourse, continues to grow. you will find in one of our more recent publications outlining the facts and consequences of terrorism through 2010 in

northwestern and central africa, and i just this part of the world alone, the number of events that have occurred over the last year has continued to soar and the exact death and carnage in its wake. this is, as we witness on tv today, different forms of expressing political and social will of the people throughout the world. it is important to note the differences between that and what some would claim is a legitimate way of expressing their political desires and most of us considered to be criminal, illegal acts of violence against humanity, but most of us would term as terrorism. we have today with us -- we are fortunate to have today with us some of the world's experts on these issues, and they will -- starting from charlie allen, who has had many decades, as you know, looking at these issues from the intelligence

community, ambassadors from two of the countries who have dealt with these issues for many lifetimes and many decades, and their experience will be of great value to us today. all of this, all the way through to our legal representatives at the end of the table from the international law institute and banned from the potomac institute of policy studies to talk about the illegality or legality of these types of acts. with that, i would like to turn the program over to professor alexander, who, as most people will recognize, is a man who does not need much introduction. he quite literally has studied almost every aspect of terrorism for more than 40 years and is a world authority on the topic. we are privileged to have him at the potomac institute. we're privileged to have him heading up the sessions every year. professor. >> thank you, very much, mike,

for your generous introduction. clearly, we are grateful to you and to the potomac institute for hosting this particular event to review the terrorist acts the year before and the outlook for the next year, and mike is very modest. we worked together on a number of studies, al qaeda before 9/11, and also other terrorist groups, and fortunately, we do have the ambassador to spain, who will discuss also the issue, and we are dealing also with the issue of cyber terrorism as well and strategic communications. first of all, let me welcome

again the panel, and we are going to introduce you in a few minutes. i would like to welcome the audience. if i may, i would like to introduce two people from the potomac -- vice president clifford, would you stand up? in the general right here, was working the cyber issues. i would like to also introduce ,ur young people, the intern's the next generation of scholars and experts in the field. where are you? we have three in the back. there are some more in the back. in general, we would like to welcome all of you. just one technical word -- please turn off your cell phones because this session is being broadcast by c-span. we want to thank c-span and also

the voices of america and others for covering this event. now, i would like to say that in particular, this stage of strategic development -- of course, we see the reason the effects of, for example, in moscow and afghanistan and so forth. what has emerged as the so- called new middle east. some people call it the 9/11 of the middle east. clearly, all these events are interconnected with the problem of terrorism because it might trigger some terrorist attacks worldwide. again, we have to watch the situation very carefully in the coming months and years, and the panel is going to deal with some

of these issues. now, as far as the presenters, each will have about 15 minutes to make their remarks, and then, we will have q&a discussion. before we introduce our panel, i would like to make two remarks. one, on a personal level, i would like to report to you that a colleague of ours just